I could take many examples from Wilberís
writings to illustrate this point.

The following is taken from Integral
Psychology P. 142.

While speaking of the Romantic view
of the deeper ground or potential he says

"this ground is said to be the same
ground one regains in enlightenment , but if so why should anyone ever
abandon it? If this ground is regained why does development do something
it does in no other system, namely start running backwards? Would a chicken
regress to an egg in order to find itself? If the ground is reunited with
the ego, so that both together constitute full development, that
means that the ground itself is not complete and how could something
inherently not complete be the ground of full enlightenment?

Could a part ever be the ground of
the whole? This view Ė which incidentally I once embraced Ė seems to be
largely inadequate in theory and data."

This passage says a lot to me about
Wilberís characteristic lack of a dynamic perspective (where both dual
and nondual aspects interact). He seems intent throughout to reduce development
to merely linear (i.e. asymmetrical) notions.

"this ground is said to be the same
ground one regains in enlightenment , but if so why should anyone ever
abandon it?

Well, from a nondual perspective
it is the same ground. However the realisation of its nondual nature requires
the dynamics of development to unfold (entailing both dual and nondual
aspects).

Therefore in early development -
where little differentiation of structures has yet taken place - we also
have very little realisation of this nondual ground. However as we keep
returning to the ground throughout development (by making Spirit immanent
in phenomena), the realisation of its spiritual nature increases.

Though from an absolute nondual perspective
it is the same ground (ever present), from the perspective of development,
where dual and nondual aspects dynamically interact, the experiential realisation
of the ground continually changes.

Thus if we wish to realise the ground
in mature integral fashion (through the process of the full development
of stages), we need to abandon the merely confused notions of earliest
development (before differentiation of structures has occurred).

"If this ground is regained why does
development do something it does in no other system, namely start running
backwards? Would a chicken regress to an egg in order to find itself?"

Has Wilber forgotten the statement
of Heraclitus?

"the way up is the way down; the
way down is the way up."

In other words Heraclitus is saying
that when properly understood - from a dynamic interactive perspective
- all development processes necessarily run backward (as well as forward).

Providing the example of "the chicken
and the "egg" that is interpreted in a merely (reduced) linear fashion
only further compounds the confusion regarding the dynamic nature of transformation
processes.

"If the ground is reunited with the
ego, so that
both together constitute full development, that means
that the ground itself is not complete and how could something inherently
not complete be the ground of full enlightenment?"

We have dealt with this point. Again
Wilber is offering a reduced asymmetrical form of interpretation that is
not appropriate to the dynamics of development (where dual and nondual
interact).

So again - whereas from an absolute
nondual perspective the nondual ground is necessarily complete Ė in terms
of development the nature of its realisation continually changes.

"Could a part ever be the ground
of the whole?"

Yes, in the appropriate context!

Once again - in dynamic terms - whole
and part (and part and whole) necessarily interact.

Therefore from an appropriate bi-directional
perspective, the whole is as much grounded in the part, as the part is
in the whole.

The problem here is that Wilberís
model over-emphasises the holarchic direction where the part is grounded
in the whole i.e. treating holons as whole/parts where every whole is part
of another whole.

However when we give equal emphasis
- relatively - to the onarchic aspect the whole is thereby grounded in
the part i.e. treating holons (or rather onhols) as part/wholes where every
part is also whole - in the context - of other parts.

For example this latter onarchic
emphasis is explicitly stated in Blakeís famous line

"To see a whole in a grain of sand"

"This view - which incidentally I
once embraced - seems to be largely inadequate in theory and data."

Let me make a couple of comments
here. The fact that Wilber once embraced the Romantic position (and then
abandoned it) does not mean in itself that the position is wrong. I think
we can see that Wilber gives a somewhat distorted version of the Romantic
position (based on an undue emphasis on merely asymmetrical distinction)
so it is this misinterpretation that he really has abandoned.

However - as is always the case where
dualistic argument is used - the alternative position (as exemplified by
his pre/trans fallacy) equally suffers distortions from a dynamic perspective.

I think Wilber would have been on
more accurate ground vis-a vis the Romantic position if he recognised the
dynamic nature of such a position but maintained that perhaps that it did
not sufficiently distinguish the confused notions of early development
from the more mature understanding of later years.

As regards the alleged inaccuracy
of the data, it is a fact (with all of us) that we tend to see in data
what suits our own argument. Also the scientific manner of research (based
on asymmetrical distinction) is not really suited to do justice to positions
that are based on more dynamic criteria (where dual and nondual aspects
of experience interact).

Certainly for example, I find his
argument in support of the bardo realms very unconvincing. I accept that
it has a valid meaning within the appropriate spiritual tradition. However
a general theory of development should not have to rely on the teaching
of a particular tradition (especially when a more acceptable dynamic explanation
can easily be provided).